Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LauraleeBraswell

I'm pointing out that you made a blanket statement that people "back then" (whatever that means - all of history?) were "mean" and "hard".

Blather.


143 posted on 08/21/2005 8:56:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]


To: little jeremiah
"Back then" refers to a time when disease was more prevalent and medicine was crude, so that one was more likely to lose a loved one to untimely death.

I think that people had to harder to be able to cope and in the process became meaner.

For example, look at the criminal punishments of the 1600s. Disemboweling, whipping, branding, burning at the stake, drowning. I'd say that was mean. There was seemingly not much sympathy. People used to bring their children to hangings.

If you look at the third world where medicine is crude, you have a situation not unlike what our ancestors lived through. Where old wives tales are depended on as medical knowledge and death takes many men women and children. IF you look at these societies, you see the same attitudes toward human suffering. As just a part of life.
Are you happy now? There I gave you the reasoning behind my silly chitchattery statement. I don't know why you would choose to take issue with it.
146 posted on 08/21/2005 9:15:22 PM PDT by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson